United States v. Charles Rouell ( 2023 )


Menu:
  •                 United States Court of Appeals
    For the Eighth Circuit
    ___________________________
    No. 22-3001
    ___________________________
    United States of America
    lllllllllllllllllllllPlaintiff - Appellee
    v.
    Charles Rouell, also known as Charley
    lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellant
    ____________
    Appeal from United States District Court
    for the Western District of Arkansas - Fayetteville
    ____________
    Submitted: February 2, 2023
    Filed: February 8, 2023
    [Unpublished]
    ____________
    Before LOKEN, BENTON, and ERICKSON, Circuit Judges.
    ____________
    PER CURIAM.
    Charles Rouell appeals after he pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute
    methamphetamine. His counsel has moved to withdraw, and has filed a brief under
    Anders v. California, 
    386 U.S. 738
     (1967), challenging the sentence.
    Upon careful review, we conclude that the district court1 did not err in
    imposing the below-Guidelines sentence that Rouell received. See United States v.
    Feemster, 
    572 F.3d 455
    , 461 (8th Cir. 2009) (en banc); United States v. Moore, 
    581 F.3d 681
    , 684 (8th Cir. 2009) (per curiam). The record reflects that the court properly
    calculated the Guidelines range and considered the 
    18 U.S.C. § 3553
    (a) factors, and
    there is no indication the court overlooked a relevant factor, or committed a clear
    error of judgment in weighing relevant factors. Specifically, the court did not err in
    characterizing Rouell as deeply involved in the conspiracy; and although the sentence
    was longer than those of some of his codefendants, it was adequately justified based
    on his role in the conspiracy and his significant criminal history. See United States
    v. Farmer, 
    647 F.3d 1175
    , 1179 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Vasquez, 
    433 F.3d 666
    , 671 (8th Cir. 2006).
    We have also independently reviewed the record under Penson v. Ohio, 
    488 U.S. 75
     (1988), and have found no non-frivolous issues for appeal. Accordingly, we
    grant counsel’s motion to withdraw and affirm.
    ______________________________
    1
    The Honorable Timothy L. Brooks, United States District Judge for the
    Western District of Arkansas.
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-3001

Filed Date: 2/8/2023

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 2/8/2023